Skip to main content

About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 90 (some duplicates have been removed)
relates to the duties of office because the sheriff is the top law enforcement officer and also responsible for handling domestic violence programs within the county. now the commission believed -- the majority believed that while there was some room for debate as to whether this conduct or decency clause is limited by the relations to the duties clause, they found that it didn't matter. ultimately whether or not the decency clause is related to the duties of office in this case official misconduct had been shown. now, i've looked at this charter provision quite a bit so when i say things like conduct, clause, and decency clause, they mean something. perhaps -- not sure how much you all have looked at it. so i am going to borrow a definition that the parties ultimately agreed to, and this is a handout actually that i believe the mayor may have created. so this is the language of 15105e, but broken down in a way to identify theirs clauses within that section. it reads, official misconduct means any wrongful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his or her offi
there is an entire body of case law to look to for guidance that has weighed many kinds of different kinds of misconduct against the professional standards and responsibilities with the person who committed it, and determined the situations where there is a relationship and there isn't a relationship. and, frankly, if you think about the facts of this case, it's not a hard call. does committing a crime of violence against your wife and pleading guilty to it, and suffering a three-year criminal conviction relate to the subject matter of a chief law enforcement officer, who runs the jails and helps administer the correctional system in san francisco? yes. yes. upon that is not an unpredictable, vague, surprised relationship. yes, there's a clear subject matter relationship. most cases will be clear. there will be cases on the boundaries where, you know, the decision-makers are going to have to exercise judgment. but there's a three -- there's a tripar tight system with checks and balances to make sure that the decision is considered, and there is also court review after that, in case the --
the standard of conduct is for a chief law enforcement officer. so although the language of the charter seems broad, it -- i mean there's certainly a good argument that it is a single standard. at the same time, it needs to be interpreted -- and is susceptible to being interpreted as a standard that his office-dependent. and again that would require a fact-specific inquiry. you can't decide in advance, without knowing what has happened in a particular case, whether it's misconduct or not misconduct. it depends on the office. >> president chiu: colleagues, follow-up questions. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: thanks, president chiu. madam city attorney, to follow up on that line of questioning though, on one hand you say it should be easy to determine what is misconduct or not. on the other hand you say it's fact specific. i think commissioner hur's comments does that not invite subjectivity and gets us back to what the question is here, about clear delineation and having security and not the future abuse this potentially in the future, not to say anybody in this room or the current
misdemeanor conviction relates to the duties of the sheriff as a law enforcement officer. >> supervisor kim: so then you're adding to the test then the second portion of your test would be a relationship test, plus the ethics commission would have to determine that it falls below the standard of decency for that office. >in relationship to the sheriff's office, but if we were to assume that it is standards in relationship to your specific office, for the sheriff, it would be the relationship to his office, plus the -- what common sense would judge as falling before the standard of decency? this is where i get stuck is when does it fall below the standard of decency? a dui could be -- as a misdemeanor. you didn't hurt anyone per se, but you could have. you could have killed someone on the road, right? so i guess that's where i would like more clarity. when does it fall below the standard of decency for the sheriff, if we were to argue that there are standards? >> well, the mayor submitted the testimony of an expert, this person was the chief -- is william -- the chief of police of the san di
processes and not/cbuu)áu or contort the law that we think best serveswj!or everyone. i will not be voting today to sustain the/ >> president chiu: supervisor:k wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you, ú?7t% %9q. >> president chiu: order please. : supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. this whole process i know has been incredibly%0b= hard for other than --c4í,÷ everyone involved especially being asked to judge a former colleague.4 and i am going to speculate that i don't think any of the 11 of us are goingwxas' to walk out of this room tonight feeling great, no matter what happens, no matter how weóçuon vote. this case has been incredibly messy on many, many levels. andp6f-7ñ will say that you know, in the community, thereÁare people whom i know, and who i respect, who feel very, very strongl$)i on both sides of this issue. and i think that reflects how difficulty this is. tonight, i will be voting to sustain the charges of misconduct in agreement with recommendation of the ethics co
put --2eúÑ the public puts in public officials and the city law, and city law enforcement. we need toíy and balances in city government and how we're upholding the will of the voters. i think it goes without saying that no one here condones any form of domestp whether it is physical verbal or psychological abuse and all could havet )ñ been in play tonight. i'm proud as a city we have8ep )tátdomestic violence and what we can domestic violence in the future. ash£&ic officials we are expected to be models of good behavior and lawful behaviory,çgx while everyone knows none of us are perfect. there was reasonable expectation of greateroqt&3 scrutiny of public officials in our private practices. but this vote is not about affirming thatÑh$ what -- is not about affirming that we abhor all forms of domestic violence or;@6u )jt moral standards for elected officials. what we are here to decide is whether or not sheriff is guilty of official misconduct and thus8qoñ removal from offers. while the agents -- the commission > jf÷ñ 4-
standards that are expected of a chief law enforcement officer. now, commissioner hur mentioned that the chief testified that any misdeed at all would be official misconduct, if committed by a sheriff. i don't think that's entirely accurate. i think what the chief testified to is that -- is that the sheriff is expected, under the professional and ethical standards associated with his particular office, to avoid most forms of dishonesty, that behavior -- accountability, being a poor role model. there are many kinds of wrongful behavior that don't rise to the level of criminals that are wrongful for a sheriff. but at the end of the day, i don't think -- i think you're posing the more difficult question than the relationship test. your question is when is the -- when is the misconduct severe enough that we should consider it official misconduct. and that isn't a function of the relationship test. conduct may relate to the duties of office without being so severe that it should rise to the level of official misconduct. i think that that -- the charter does not offer you an answer to
that some future mayor will be -- not by the rule of law but the temptation to remove a political adversary. removing an elected while not in office iscq.c4 not justice. if any case cry out for a bright line rule, for a clear and unambiguous application for the law to the fact it is this case. i will turn it over to shepherd kopp. thank you. >> president chiu: will remind members of the public, the first rule of this chamber is for members of the public not to express either applause or other statements. thank you. mr. kopp. >> thank you. good afternoon, members of the board, president. i'm shepherd kopp and along with mr. wagner i've been representing sheriff ross mirkarimi during these proargs. i want to discuss why we strongly believe that we don't need to draw from other jurisdictions as the mayor has, in order to arrive at a definition of official misconduct, that works in san francisco, and that is workable. and that has been tested. and the reason that we have come back time and again to the case involving commissioner mazzola is because, in that case, we saw board of supervisors sit
. legislation that we have before us strengthens an existing law, to restrict this practice known as hotel evasion. in 1981 the passage of the apartment conversion ordinance, which is second, 41-a of the administrative code made it illegal for residential propertis with four or more units to be occupied pore for less than 30 days. unfortunate le what we have found in recent years there has been a problem that has persisted due to enforcement challenges and a loophole in the law. in recent years we have seen many corporations sidestep this law by signing long-term loiss with property owner ises that their non-san franciscan employees can use the apartment as short-term corporate housing or tourism residential housing. so for example, as an example, in my district, the tenants at the large golden gateway [kph-efpl/] have experienced corporate employees and guests that come in and out of their buildings just like a hotel. based on rent board record there's are an estimate of dozens of these units that are leased by corporate entities. this not only creates quality of life issues for neighbors
line. there are many bright lines in the law. now again not every law is susceptible to a bright line but by and large i think it does benefit the public when the laws are clear so that they can easily be followed. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: you somewhat addressed this already when you said that it may be challenging for you to address the actual relationship to the office that was determined by the majority of the commission, but since you were sent to represent the commission i thought i would ask, so having read the transcripts several times actually the one question that was not answered to me is what exactly is the relationship to the office? i heard a couple of examples such as the sheriff runs our domestic violence programs and he committed an act of domestic violence. from your understanding of the majority of the commission is that the relationship, or was there another kind of clear delineation of what that relationship to the office was, for specifically counts 4 and 5? >> supervisor kim, i think that was the relati
their charges, a law enforcement official, or a public official could rob banks on their way to their inauguration, and there's nothing that anybody could do about it. well, there's a couple of points that i'd like to make about that. number one is the charter of san francisco, while an admirable document, is not perfect. in fact, there's no provision in the charter that permits anyone to remove the mayor for official misconduct. the only way a mayor can be removed is by recall, or defeat in the next election. so the mayor could commit a first degree murder, and not be removable, unless the voters decide to take matters into their own hand and remove him. the mayor has also made the argument that this removal provision,ka@u 15.105, is a valuable, speedy and effective tool. and they want you to do the work, that the voters might have to do if they were to decide to launch a recall election. well the voters have decided to launch a recall election, thateÑ issue would be decided next month. so their argument that this is procedure is not borne out byk5p the facts and the length
of sheriff includes not just the direct oversight of programs in thexs- those who have broken the law. this criminal" completely related to the official duties of the sheriff. and it isib how deputy sheriffs, who are not bpj4(p&c"p% allowed to commit crimes while they're off duty to keep their jobs are askedi?z1e to abide by one standard and not require the sheriff, their boss, to abide by that same standard. secondly as i think through the3]ez arguments of the sheriff's lawyers, they have been very good arguments it's hard for me to agree with the suggestion that somehow this is a personal act of misconduct but not official misconduct, that we are only responsible for what happens from 9:00 to 5:00 when we sit in our public office. as public officials, and<:q0z when we ran to be public officials, i think we knew that we are held to a different standard given our position.pí'0$@&c"p% it's also hard for me to agree that a public official somehow@/:uÑ immune with this conduct, just because it happened after election day but befc1a s
to suspend the sheriff was without basis in the law and why you must ultimately reinstate the sheriff. ross mirkarimi campaigned on the power of redemption. he's been a key proponent of restorative justice in this city. but there is no question that on december 31st, 2011, ross mirkarimi made a serious and terrible mistake. and how did he deal with that mistake? he immediately apologized to his wife. he entered into counseling. he apologized to the people of san francisco. he pled guilty to a criminal offense. all of that underscores the responsibility that rossq]j terrible mistake that he made on new year's eve last year. and as a result of that mistake, several months from his wife and son. he was suspended without pay, with no means to provide for hi family. his entire life's work was destroyed almost in an instant. he's beenwácf described by the r and the mayor's attorneys with the most inflammatory and prejudicial rhetoric, yet at the end of the day, the punishment does not fit theyxúw crime. this afternoon, i'm going to spend a fe7%g minutes telling u about why this case is differ
onzo0eñ the innuendo and comments that have been made. we decide this casee24ne based on the law that governance official misconduct, including. the charter provisions that control it, and based on theam1sidence presented. and if you look at the facts and aç the law, it is clear that there are two possiblel+lcm interpretations of what official misconduct and while i understand and respect the position that has been articulatedí
look at all of the policy concerns, and the case law, it becomes clear that it makes no sense whatsoever to draw the line at the oath of office rather than at the election. it would be contrary to the voter's intent to enhance the ethical responsibilities of their public officials and hold them accountable to imply this two month free zone in between the election and taking the oath of office, where that elected official could do whatever he wanted with no consequences with his public position, until that moment when he walks up to the lectern and raises his hand. it also would lead to absurd results. an elected official could, for example, commit domestic violence on tuesday, and be safe from any official consequences. but if the oath of office is later that day, he couldn't do the same thing on wednesday. that's a completely arbitrary line. it makes no sense whatsoever. it's very different if you draw the line at the election. that makes perfect sense. once an official has been granted the voters trust, then he also has the ethical obligation to protect that trust by not com
duties as chief law enforcement officer in his role administering the city's domestic violence programs. the fact that the relationship test is interpreted by the ethics commission majority to include a subject matter relationship is really very sensible. what happens if you commit misconduct in the very terrain, the very subject matter that you're charged with as a government official is you implicate the public character of your office. if you're the tax collector, and you misrepresent your income on your income taxes, that's not purely private misconduct. that is a matter of public concern because it shows the public that it has a fox in the henhouse, essentially. that's very different, if, for example, you're an animal control officer and you misrepresent your income on your taxes. and think of it in reverse. what if you're an animal control officer. is there a relationship to the duties of your position if you're running a dog fight ring? in your private time? of course there is. no one wants michael vic in control of the animal control department. at the same time, if michael vic
, neither the sheriff, supervisor, or any elected official is above the the law. however, what we also have the opportunity to demonstrate is that serving in one of these positions does not deem a person unworthy of redemption. to declare public officials don't deserve second chances goes against we are as a city. personal conduct from the previous mayor on do unto civil servants. we have been open minded by allowing people with criminal records to reengage with society responsibly and be accountable for their actions. whether a public official or a public servant, a member of the board or a member of the public, we all deserve the opportunity to bring about positive changes. finally, sheriff mirkarimi made an egregious mistake, one that has had serious personal professional and legal consequences. his actions were un undeniably wrong and has taken treatments toward court mandated resolution. however based on instructions provided to my by voters of san francisco through the charter i cannot find that his actions were
as a little bit being dragged over a wooden fence? because that's what happened to me. i don't have a law degree like many of you do but i believe my constitutional right under the law has been violated because someone involved in this case got two days in court for allegations that were nowhere near what happened to me. i want to know why gina flores was given two days in court. i'm here to support reinstatement of ross mirkarimi. because we need his leadership yesterday. i want to ask a question perhaps to invoke a little bit of humor. i wonder who is the biggest liar, mayor edwin lee, the san francisco chronicle, or mitt romney. >> president chiu: next speaker please. >> hi. my name is kathy black, executive director ofwc]%u la ca de los madres. the facts matter.41q$ the sheriff admitting a violent act against his wife.#[t he pled guilty to false imprisonment in a domestic violence quais. we have not been surprised by the minimize of the injury and unwillingness to takeÑ2 responsibility and blaming others. in front of you today we stand for victim(abq safety. it is also up to us to
this decision to assure the public that i am aware of the long-lasting impacts there will be on the law, the sheriff, and his family. the community of domestic violence prevention advocates, the over all moral of the city and county of san francisco now and in the future. whatever the outcome my hope is that all of us, as residents of this city, will use this as an opportunity to fine-tune our moral compass, to lean more toward honor, nobility, justice and compassion. with that said, i think it is important to note the process that i went through in evaluating the issue. when determining whether to sustain the charges as issued by the mayor, and recommended by the ethics commission i worked backwards. i thought of it in the context of, in order to remove the sheriff, what would be necessary. and in my opinion, the removal of any elected official from office requires that the mayor supply evidence that demonstrates with great certainty that the charter prescribed definition of official misconduct was violated. so thes
to the duties that the sheriff has, the duty to enforce the law, to administer the jails, to lead his deputies by example, to protect victims of domestic violence. the mayor put in really quite a bit of evidence about all the ways in which the subject matter of the sheriff's duties is -- touches on domestic violence, offender rehabilitation, officer discipline, et cetera, things that are affected throughout all of his performance. now, the sheriff argues that since he was elected to office, it should be left to the people to recall him from office, through the recall procedure. but that's really wrong. the san francisco charter, as you know, is the city's constitution. it contains the most fundamental rules and principles that the people have determined for themselves about how they wish to be governed. and one of the ways that the people would like to be governed is they would like to have a process, and have votes -- this process, whereby officials who may have already -- whom they have already elected can be removed from office if they commit official misconduct after the election. and you'
carefully. the language that defines official misconduct as bad conduct that violates laws related to a particular office or to all public offices. a charge of official misconduct must logically contain a description of a particular conduct or behavior, and a reference to an ethics or conflict of interest law. it is clear that no evidence has been presented that the sheriff's behavior is official misconduct. look at the mayor's charges, amended charges, brief, or whatever document you wish. listen to the endless drama of commission hearings. there are no charges of official misconduct. there is no action paired with citation of relevant law that has been broken. charges of official misconduct are the emperor's new clothes. >> president chiu: next speaker. >> hi. my name's teresa cooper. and i worked on ross' campaign. and it really hurts my heart to see what's going on in my city. i've never supported anyone in this city, never got involved in politics. but i felt ross was right. and i went with that as a healer. i was one of the best ones at rubberbanding, okay. i've really truste
';[ under the color of the law. i think about the last time this came before us -- notpwon÷ before the board of supervisors but the last time it occurred in the city andi@4y that was with ajew. if supervisor+>çda elect had told the store he would help them through a planning processbú$g if they took a bribe before he swore an oath of office i(r think he committed official misuse of conduct because he is using his office under the color of the law so tai he can do one thing or a; i think the timing issue has been well settled here. on the definition ofy[ri official misconduct, and hees where i agree with chairman huh i think wej1jj need to take the most narrow definition of official misconduct asxn1 defined by maz ol-a and black's law disiksary and that the conduct clause whether it falls below the standard of desen ski must be inwwg2f direct relation and connected to the performance of your official duties or purá,6u purporting to perform your official duties. on the standard, and this isuú0zp where it got stickier for me is where i
including community leader sam ladder. after graduating from u.c. berkeley and hastings law school, bob joined a family firm and became active in numerous civic organizations, particularly within the jewish community as well as on our san francisco human rights commission. he also had a love of politics and successfully ran the mccarthy campaign for the board of supervisors. and i know that he will be missed dearly by the community and his family. my third in memoriam is for gary cray who is known by many in the telegraph hill community, my district, as the filbert steps gardner. gary tended to the gardens of the filbert steps, which is one of our city's great hidden treasures for more than three decades. and he took care of the sprawling garden as a volunteer. it was truly a labor of love for him and he was never paid a dime for t. he worked his hearts -- poured his heart into his work to create a clean, green and serene space that many in my neighborhood and throughout the city have grown to love and appreciate. in addition to caring for gardens, he was also someone who was dedicated
. the -- figuratively above the law is over the police chief and thek! sheriff. i was disappointed that the the opportunity to subpoena hear her testimony that she gave mayor lee that he should dismiss ross mirkarimi as a wife-beater. this testimony is in -- that commissioner renne tabbed is merely hear say and the worst ramblings of a first year law student. it's disappointing we have not heard ivory madison speak. the -- in the commission hearings, i attended, the question was brought up of the presumption of guilt, how many times do you beat your wife, mr. mirkarimi. and, also, i heard that the finding that sentence is evidence of guilt. the sentence is not evidence of guilt. this all unfortunately began at a meeting at the cafe -- four weeks before the -- >> president chiu: thank you very much. >> good evening,zez supervisors. obviously a long one. i want to thank you all for your endurance here. my name is gus feldman a field represent with seiu 10-1. as we move forward in the night on this matter i want you to please consider the following questions. numberguwuv one, have the
francisco has a sheriff who is able and willing to respect the laws that apply to all of us, and to adhere to standards that we expect from leaders. to those who say don't take away my vote, i would like to say, and those who feel that ross is being unfairly targeted, i would like to say that had it been known that he lacks the integrity necessary for this job, i would not have voted for him, and i would suggest that those who feel that they are being deprived of their votes look to ross as the person responsible for taking away their votes. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is -- herrera. i've been a domestic violence advocate for six years, helping the community. i am concerned with this process has communicated to victims of domestic violence. every day we are working hard to make sure that victims are here from all over the world. and clear about their rights and understand that they have the right to be free from domestic violence, abuse, and control, from their partners. if ross mirkarimi is not removed from office after admitting abusi
proceeding, this is not a court of law.q9j)Ñ if there's any parallel, it's probably an impeachment president bill clinton. i think most of the people in this rg÷yñ and most of you would agree we saw how that process was terribly abused because ofh0 where a personal -- a repugnant was suddenly put into the national limelight and made into something that basicallye"o kidnapped the entire country. i think in some ways this is what's going on here. i'll tell you why. because it's not like this is the first time we've had a high public official98v that's been engaged in domestic violence. in fact, i did a little bit ofq research and, you know, there mcbride who was arrested and charged with domestic violence, entered a6e=f plea like ross mirkarimi did, was sentenced, yet he continued as a judge. by his colleagues to be presiding judge and continues to serve on the bench to this-çÑx( day. or how about the case of hayes-white. i have cued up on my phone the youtube videoqq;$ audio of the 1 call where her husband is calling in about domestic violence which i don't have it play for you. but the
, starting in 1996. there hasn't been -- the law has not changed one iota since i served on the commission. and during those years, we heard many cases of alleged official misconduct. but the reason you haven't heard about most of them is because we were instructed as follows, by both city attorney louise rene and herrera which is opposed to what the city attorney is claiming was the law in this case. we were instructed, unless the commission has found probable cause to believe that a provision of the charter or city ordinances relating to campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest, or governmental ethics has been violated, the regulations are clear thati.z further action may be taken by the commission. he goes on to state, the charter does not2xi?y authorize the commission to impose any type of public censure upon individuals who have not committed a violation within the jurisdiction of the ethics commission. the ethics commission only has jurisdiction over thegg6.ñ local campaign and governmental conduct code. it does not have jurisdiction political reform act and definitely incl
who uphold and respects the law, as we are also expected to do so. there have been a string of recent domestic violence incidents in the media regarding high profile individuals who have been able to avoid harsh punishment. as a city, we must stand and make a statement that anyone, especially elected officials, will be held accountable for their actions. let us not forget, he did plead guilty to a crime. as a city, we must realize that the sheriff is a -- of his department. mirkarimi is seen as the leading example for his department and his employees. we deserve to be able to trust and respect our law enforcement officers. victims of domestic violence have the right to be protected by the sheriff's department without fear that our issues will be taken lightly. by removing sheriff ross mirkarimi from the board -- i'm sorry, from office, the board of supervisors will affirm and ensure that any official will be accountable to the public they serve, and exhibit an appropriate standard of conduct. please make the right decision for the san francisco residents you serve, and vote for the re
misconduct. why38éx is that important. because that defines everything underneath that law. the reasonçjj;$at they could evn make the poor case that they did confines of official misconduct that is indicated in thedvá' rel brief right here, official now, an important question. what is official. here's the definition ofr@ official. it says here, a person invested with the authority of thesón office. that means they have to have the power of the office. they can't be pract/1r(mz%Ñ getting ready for it or preparing for it. they have to have the authority of the office. either we.zj83 are a country o, tierney is what is being offered here. and theygtç8o offer that -- i hd from the attorney for the mayor this morning saying that there was a triparti system that was going to save this from being tyrannical. what if a political machine, per chance, had control of the san francisco. how -- what solace could any voter take in that very skimpy protection that she offers. we have only one thing, the rule of law. >> presidenlaw. >> hello. my name is josh wolf, and when i found myself subpoenaed
know,zqíaáá we're left with though is the law. chartereejj4 section, and if ts any am biewg iewt, and the attorney -- theq4l mayor earlier couldn't tell you which misdemeanor might not be official misconductr=;xg or mi. so similarly, i don't think we're going to be able to articulate for you everyla] possible nuance, because the law itself is ambiguous. theredzl(é is, as the ethics commission majority said, there's room for disagre&, for disagreement, where the law is ambiguous, you ultimately shoul come down on the side of the sheriff and the voters. >> supervisor wiener: i understand. we also[ + hypotheticals probe and push to actual position is, because people talkedwaógt about preced. and so i think going both ways we heard some92gl i think it's fair to push hypotheticals both sides to -- the particular argument. i appreciate it. >> president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, we've been going for two hours. i understand our stenographer needs about seven minute break to rest her hands and switch out a tape. i suggest we recess for a few minutes and come back. supervi
that although there is a law and we can tell people that, and then you know, there is not very much comfort in that, because then the next thing out of our mouths is, but it's not really monitored, enforced and there are some tools missing that we really need to do proper enforcement. so this is really commonsense measure, i think. it's simply strengthening a law that we already have. it's already been determined that there is a need for it. we have already agreed that it's a problem and that we want to control this and contain this issue. and this will actually give us, again, the tools that we need to ensure that that happens. i have noticed that no one is here from pharmaceutical or the gap or google or wherever the list that janine had. and i think i haven't heard any opposition generally to this and that is because it would be so brazen to show up here today and say, no, we think it's wrong for you to restrict our ability to make a profit at the expense of san francisco renters. who are holding on to their homes in this increasingly unaffordable housing market and that is telling. aga
at the facts before you. mirkarimi plediif8w guilty. his conviction is beyond his own case. he's the top law enforcement ideally the sheriff would have said because i've -- the crime and i want my department to be seen as a department that will not only hold offenders accountable but ask offenders to hold themselves accountable and since my conviction is relevant to my duties and probation term within my own department that i will oversee, i will resign for the integrity of this city and send a message that any level of domestic violence will be taken seriously but he didn't do this. so i am asking you not to be scared of setting a precedent of removing a sheriff from office for misconduct related to the sheriff's role. we voted you because we thuft you to do a thorough job in other cases that might come before you. being progressive, which the people are claiming to keep him in office i think being progressive is beyond our -- violence against women such as he said sorry it was a mistake opinion it was mig nord when it was against women. san francisco wants a sheriff who is proud that san f
a vested interest in carrying out massyç martial law. also ifv=n#; decide to remove him just keep in mind that the city of san francisco will!b4çl be vulnerable to huge lawsuits going forward. you understand this right? so thank you for yourohu consideration and listening to my concerns. please vote to reinstate him as bb restore my vote. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you. nexta(c speakertsnkc. >> good evening, supervisors. i'm peter warfield, head of library usersÑ7fár association. we support the reinstatement of sheriff ross mirkarimi and ask you to d8Ñ vote for reinstatement. we are concerned that the removal of the electe$c@ sheriff would be a dangerous precedent for all of the reasons that you've heard previously. we3jzgh also understand the hypocrisy of the mayor in using the ethicséñzs commission to bludgeon ross mirkarimi while doing nothingcllt] at all in a previous matter in which the ethics commission recommen remove mayoral appointee jewel gomez, who is commissi
chiu, supervisors, thank you. arnold duffy, representing thc0xt÷ hastings law school rants conductive society. you know when -- thing came up a few years ago it was remarkable how slowly mayor gavin newsom how long it took before he suspended him given everything that was cut andtd i would urge you really don't erode that standard. those of you who know me know that my first andy>k foremost interest at city hall is election activism and well-running elections and thatéyg#t activism has led me in and out of the political factions here. i would say removing a person from office for relatively minor if any official malfeasance and ití not about domestic violence,eu/ that's a really, really bad thing for -- the man is -- or anyone inme+km his position is -- has to get reelected, and also there's an election process called a recall. i would maintain the checks and balances of governments if i were you. the board of supervisors is supposed to be a balance to the mayor. i would act on that. thank you. >> hi. m
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 90 (some duplicates have been removed)